On the ground.

AstraMike:

Are Tim Clark's comments/concerns posted somewhere that you can link to?
Per your point on his background, a read well worth the time.

That last point you raised strikes me as a "nail hit on the head" observation.

@Lonewolf 50:

Link below:
Emirates? Clark Sees MH370 Investigation Deficiencies | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week

I presume this statement refers to VHF voice, ACARS and the SSR transponder.

I remember hearing a statement by a Malaysian official in an early presser that one or more of these had been disabled. However, I don't recall ever seeing an explanation of how the investigators know that these systems were deliberately disabled by human intervention (which is the interpretation constantly assumed here and elsewhere, not least in what I've seen of Tim Clarke's remarks), as opposed to transmissions from them simply ceasing to be received past a certain time, for reasons unknown.

Could someone enlighten me? Were logoff or shutdown messages received from some source? I haven't seen reference to such in the disclosed ACARS information, and I didn't think that audio transceivers and SSR transponders did such things.

I'm not aware of any such evidence. The SATCOM logs, for example, didn't show any kind of logoff message from the aircraft, it just stopped transmitting for a while around the time the transponder went off.

To me, that tends to imply a power failure, but that power failure could be due to human actions.

Emirates? Clark Sees MH370 Investigation Deficiencies | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week
I don't think Clark understands probability and luck. There but for the grace of God ...

So, is the answer pilotless airliners?

You can only go on the information you have, and that's not much. But there's no indication anyone but the PIC had the knowledge or opportunity to deliberately disappear.

I don't understand Tim's comment re his pilots not knowing how to turn off vhf,hf, and acars.

Turn of VHF and HF , acar is dead because no sat con acars on MAS.

Many pilots on here say no way to not being able to turn off systems in the case of fire for example, how does thisstack up to Tim's statement.

What am I missing or mis-understanding please.

You know, you might deliberately turn off something because there is smoke coming out from behind its panel.
There is deliberate with intent and deliberate with cause.
One may lead you to be suspicious the other is common sense.

more accurately..... "sometime between 17:07 and 18:25"

I agree but he seemed to say his pilots wouldn't know how to.

Tim Clark interview was nice. Except for assumptions about MAS ability to track Aircraft and its ACARS subscription service. He seemed to compare it to Emirates which more than likely has a full subscription to these services. MAS didn't subscribe and it Operations Control was using an Internet based free Aircraft Tracking software, which is becoming the norm for Low Cost Operators but is spreading to larger ones to curb costs. The LCC I worked for in Singapore for example didn't use ACARS. We as Pilots were still using VOLMET HF and VHF for our ETOPS flights. Which seemed idiotic but was apparently legal in that state. Our Chief Pilot ( ex Large European LCC)was dead set against ACARS usage, hence all our Aircraft were disabled in that regard. The only connection available was the engineering side. At my current Airline we use ACARS all the time and we see the benefits immensely. This Low Cost disease of saving money by not subscribing to ACARS has caught in Asia. And the usage of these free tracking systems has taken over and honestly its dangerous. The MAS OCC were telling ATC that MH370 was in Cambodian Airspace for hours after ATC lost it at Igari, because there were using this free tracking software. Don't get me wrong this software is great for enthusiasts, but officially something more accurate needs to be used.
The thing about this latest IATA conference in Dubai, did they talk about the Lithium Ion battery carriage rules again? This definitely needs to be attended too.

How can anyone assess with such confidence what things his employees don't know?

It is known (or at least it is to be hoped) that the pilots are thoroughly familiar with many, if not most, of the systems on board. Of course, there will be some aspects of the aircraft that pilots are not explicitly trained in; a pilot is not expected to be able to build his aircraft from scratch.

There may be ways to disable certain systems that pilots are not trained to know about, but then, nobody is born with that knowledge; it must be learned somewhere. And surely a trained and qualified 777 pilot is further along that road to knowledge than anyone else?

The implication that a terrorist or terrorists unknown, coming from outside the aviation industry, have the ability to learn such things more readily than persons who start their acquisition of knowledge from the position of type-qualified pilots is, frankly, bizarre.

If it can be done, any intelligent and motivated person can learn to do it. Complex failure modes can be the result of deliberate action - and as Backoffice points out, this may not imply malice, but can arise from a genuine attempt to prevent disaster.

Complex failure modes can also result from damage to systems; while not readily reproducible, it is nevertheless common for fires and other escalating failures to produce patterns of failure that common sense would suggest were hugely implausible.

The evidence presented so far is insufficient to rule out any of the following:

Deliberate malicious act by one or more passengers
Deliberate malicious act by one or more crew
Deliberate crew actions intended to prevent or mitigate disaster (unsuccessful)
Non-deliberate failure of one or more systems leading to fire or structural damage, resulting in an unusually complex series of events

In other words, despite the vast quantity of ink and pixels expended so far, all that is really known is that the aircraft went missing; and that there is some good evidence, including primary radar traces and the INMARSAT pings, that it re-crossed the Malay peninsula, and then headed into the southern Indian Ocean, after it disappeared from secondary radar.

Any hypothesis that fits those facts is possible; none are plausible; one is correct.

ATSB Tender for MH370 Search
 

ATSB has, this morning, released the tender documents for the MH370 search. You need to be registered to download it but synopsis is available from AUStender at this link:

http://www.tenders.gov.au/?event=pub...BEB3C04BEB2FB0

The tender itself calls for a complete range of services and specifies the detail to which the search is to be conducted including the requirement to provide raw search data for others to analyse independently of the contractor and daily, weekly and monthly reporting of activities.

Tim Clark Interview
 

If one would be willing to take Emirates Chairman Tim Clark's statement at face value, then passenger #240 has reared it's ugly head again.

Curtin University Acoustic Signals
 

Acoustic signal received at Rottnest at 1:30am UTC. The final ping arc is about 2,000km from Perth. Sound travels 1500m/s in seawater. This means it would have taken 22mins to reach Rottnest from the final ping arc, which would be 1:08am UTC. Final satcom communication at 00:19am, 49mins difference. Is it possible to glide 49mins in a 777?

Its now all blood under the bridge. Introduce transmission of recorder data asap. Let us work on stopping the next one happening.

The 7th Arc from ATSB
 

flyball. Might the speed be less than 1500m/s?
Velocity of sound in sea-water Calculator - High accuracy calculation

The PhD who investigated this acoustic data gave a very comprehensive interview on radio 18 hours ago. He is almost certain (90% confidence) the noise was NOT MH370.

He feels more likely it represented a small earthquake or ice breaking off Antarctic shelf.

He did say low frequency sounds (at or below lower limit of human hearing) can be detected many thousands of km away. Main variables are:
1. topography of the bottom (helpful if the ocean bottom at the source sound was sloped towards the listener, as this will "lens" (reflect) noise towards the listener.
2. temperature layers (deep water channel)

He also confirmed frequencies in range of pingers would be limited to just a couple of km regardless of conditions.

Worth a listen if you are interested. Maybe available online (2gb.com). But he didn't leave much room for doubt.

Curtin University Acoustic Signals
 

Ornis, you may be correct, its hard to find accurate sea surface temperature measurements for the 8th of March and it also depends on whether the plane hitting the surface caused the signal or the plane imploding under the ocean caused the signal. The acoustic sensor is located at a depth of 400m so this affects the speed as well.

Using the image Minimbar posted the final ping is about 1600km away from Perth, so this would make it 17mins for the travel time of the signal and a further five minutes the plane would need to glide (54mins).

ETH961 glided for 27mins after last engine shut down from 20,000ft, (even with hijacker interference).

Unfortunately, I cannot access the recording. But I would be interested to know his reasoning. Has he seen recordings of a 777 ditching and imploding at depth or anything similar? If not then he is giving a 90% assumption.

The recordings of an identifiable noise (in fact two) happening at approximately the time that 370 was expected to have 'ditched' is an extreme coincidence.